Lloyd Parker wrote:
In article ,
Retief wrote:

On Mon, 13 Nov 06 11:13:12 GMT, (Lloyd Parker)
wrote:


1.5-2 W/m^2 since about 1910, depending on whose data you use.

"Regardless of any discussion about solar irradiance in past centuries, the
sunspot record and neutron monitor data (which can be compared with
radionuclide records) show that solar activity has not increased since the
1950s and is therefore unlikely to be able to explain the recent warming."


CO2 is the major change since 1950.


Then clearly, by this same argument, CO2 is not the cause of warming,
as: http://cdiac.ornl.gov/ftp/db1009/inputs/co2-sens.dat, shows that
the CO2 concentration increased from 278 ppm (~1770), to 298 ppm by
1910, however the temperature did NOTHING during this period...:



So? If X is not increasing now and Y is, and Z goes up, X must not be a cause
of Z.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:I...ure_Record.png

If CO2 was the cause of the warming, it clearly would have warmed by
this time...



Just can't stand it that your "sun is causing it" is totally wrong, can you?
It sticks in your craw.

So why don't you actually get to it an prove he is wrong? You can't can you!


http://www.realclimate.org/index.php...n-hit-record-h

ighs-over-the-last-few-decades/

Realclimate.org is not a refereed scientific journal, Lloyd... Didn't
you recently demand that people cite scientific journals?

It sure isn't - it is about as reliable as the "Intelligent Design"
mob's "science" is! Who knows, it may even BE their "science" at work!


Read the article there I cited. 6 references at the end, from Nature and
Phys. Rev. Lett. "Did the Sun hit record highs over the last few decades?"

The author is at NCAR.

Not possible! An artificial/abstract body can't write! It is about as
"intelligent" as saying "the Table wrote that" because the paper was on
the table when the author wrote (whatever) on it.